Sunday, 31 July 2016

If there is one issue on which the
liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war
in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the
Western elites will not only lead
to war but also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it
as well. Such a paranoid outlook, of course, is not shared with those of the
spiritually enlightened left.

They are more in tune with the European
Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal
wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of
people who would testify to this, notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of
ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and
their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the
Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon
populations of Belgium itself — to name but a few.

In fact, it would be hard to find a phrase
exhibiting such an awe-inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled
with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei”, the
“welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.

It should never be forgotten that the Nazi
party were the one-time allies of the Communists, those moral-free
“egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union
on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to
the sloganeering of genocidal regimes, and unaware, apparently, that
they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.

What the liberal/left palpably fail to
realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” —
manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism —
inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many
fronts, and we are losing all of them.

Saturday, 30 July 2016

Friday, 29 July 2016

Until
very recently British politicians and journalists were forever eulogizing on
the merits of a multicultural society. They told us how enriching it was and
how we should celebrate our vibrant diversity hitherto unavailable in the
racially stale and homogenous West. However, despite these outpourings of
praise verging on the messianic I have yet to hear any of them elaborate on the
concrete positives of multiculturalism. Just one instance would suffice, but
multiculturalism’s adherents prefer to praise in the general rather than the
specific. As such they are just words with no meaning and no intention of
meaning, other perhaps than that of deliberate subterfuge.

After the
July 2005 bombings of London’s transport system two lone voices miraculously
came to the fore to gently propose that multiculturalism as preached in the UK
was more divisive than inclusive. Fortunately, these voices belonged to
non-white immigrants and were therefore listened to and reported on rather than
being shouted down with the inevitable charge of racism. Trevor Philips, the
Lenin-admiring Guyanese chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality
suggested we were sleepwalking toward segregation whilst Dr. John Sentamu, the
Ugandan Archbishop of York, alerted the native British to the dangers of losing
their culture.

With the
taboo apparently broken Britain is now engaged in an “intense debate” as to the
merits and debits of multiculturalism — with particular regard to Islam. The
general consensus, fairly unsurprisingly, is that multiculturalism’s ideology
of encouraging a separate Muslim identity is to blame for the alienation of
British Islamic youth. This is partly true but what is not mentioned is that
British Muslims need little encouragement to retain their identity, whilst
their propensity to vent their righteous indignation by self-detonating in
crowded tube trains is semi-excused. This does not appear to me to be a debate
that can in any way be termed intense.

Thursday, 28 July 2016

There were
two interesting letters
in the Daily Telegraph this morning. One was very unusual in that it
implicitly referenced the Koran and its influence on Islamic terror. I don’t
believe I have ever seen this in the mainstream media before. The other was the
usual liberal/establishment kumbaya guff that got the West into trouble in the
first place. One of the letter writers understands Western civilisation - the
other threatens it.

SIR – After yet another
Islamist terrorist atrocity, is it not time to examine carefully from where
they are driven? The Koran contains 109 verses exhorting Muslims to violence,
many directly against Jews and Christians. The vast majority of peaceful
Muslims reject this teaching, but those who do not are not “radicalised”, they
are just following the Koran’s teachings. It is time for a mature debate on
what Islam teaches and stands for.

SIR
– It is vital that the horrific murder of Fr Jacques Hamel does not – as the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant intends – divide Christians and Muslims.
It is more important than ever that Christians and Muslims together affirm
their trust in the unfailing mercy of the one God. It would be good if more
clergy invited an imam to speak in church and arranged social occasions, such
as the annual Peace Walk in Oxford, where people meet and those afraid of
racist abuse know they are supported.

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

When Francis
Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man in 1993, it was
to argue that Western liberal democracy and free market economics meant an end
to warfare within the west, and by default, the end of history. This idea that
warfare within the West is now a thing of the past seems to be shared by an
overwhelming section of Western people, reared as they are on a diet of
enlightened tolerance and historical ignorance.

In 1990 it
would have been relatively difficult to argue with Fukuyama’s prophecy. The
West, excluding the inevitable frictions that came with the break-up of the
Soviet Union, was clearly not going to engage in the type of politics that led
to the two world wars, whilst the demise of Communism meant an end to the
global proxy wars between Russia and America.

What Fukuyama
failed to realise, however, was that the ingredient for yet another “war to end
all wars” was already in place. The cultural clashes between Nazism, fascism,
communism and liberal democracies had simply been replaced with another
ideology that would inevitably clash with the Western host cultures — Islam.

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

In the aftermath of the Bataclan theatre massacre in 2015, President
Hollande declared France was at war with ISIS. In the aftermath of the Islamic
carnage in Nice, Hollande declared France was at war with ISIS. In the
aftermath of the Islamic attack on the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray and
the beheading of Father Jacques Hamel, President Hollande declared France was
at war with ISIS.

What strange times we live in. Hollande cannot declare war
on ISIS because ISIS is not just some foreign power in far-away
lands which can be bombed from the air with impunity. ISIS is Islam and Islam
is in France. Islam is in Paris and Marseilles. Like a rapidly expanding virus,
Islam has invaded France and is attacking the racial base, the cultural base,
the spiritual base and the political base of the host country itself.

So Hollande’s war is a myth, which is hardly surprising. After
all, what is he realistically able to do? Invade Paris and level the banlieues?
Build internment camps and lock up everyone with a beard? Hollande knows he is
on difficult ground here, as can be gleaned from his following abject
statement: “we must fight this war by all means, while respecting the rule of
law, what (sic) makes us a democracy.”

Left-liberals within the BBC,
Sky News, CNN etc, all seem to be terribly confused as to why Muslims cut off
the heads of non-Muslims. Earlier today, in the church of
Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, two Muslims beheaded Fr Jacques Hamel, 84.
Journalists working for any of the organisations mentioned above might like to
memorise the following verse from the Koran - which might help overcome their
current confusion:

Koran (47:4) “If you encounter
the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads. Take them as captives
when they are defeated. Then you may set them free as a favour to them, with or
without a ransom, when the battle is over. This is the Law. Had God wanted, He
could have granted them (unbelievers) victory, but He wants to test you through
each other. The deeds of those who are killed for the cause of God will never
be without virtuous results.”

I attended an ordinary English state school in the late
1950s. In our history lessons we were taught that England is the heart of Great
Britain, that Great Britain is the heart of an Empire, and that, thanks to this
Empire, ideas of law, freedom, and democratic government had spread around the
globe. We were therefore proud of the Empire, which we described as British,
not English, and thought of it as proof of our national virtues and a
contribution to the advancement of mankind. Our flag was the Union Jack, a
striking synthesis of the emblems of our constituent peoples, and we believed
that this flag represented a peaceful union, rather than the triumph of one
nation over others. We sang “Rule Britannia,” the rousing chorus of which
declares that “Britons never never never shall be slaves!”

Monday, 25 July 2016

The following article is from my 2007 archive. I don't think it dates - if anything, it is more pertinent now than it was then!

**************************************

Is it possible to be well adjusted, attractive,
educated, successful, and a liberal? Alternatively, is it possible to be
both Politically Correct and a liberal at the same time? In order to understand
the peculiar contradictions of contemporary liberalism it is necessary first to
understand the meaning of classical liberalism circa 1900 and the liberalism of
the West in 2007.

Classical liberalism meant a belief in the
democratic process, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality of
opportunity (although never quite couched in such terms), the presumption of
innocence, small government, the individual before the group, religious
freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the rights of the child, an obligation
to help the genuinely disadvantaged in society and, generally speaking, a live
and let live laissez-faire attitude. It was the product of many hundreds of
years of gradual evolution encompassing Christianity, the reformation, the
enlightenment, common law, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It
was a cause for the good and the term liberal one to be worn with pride.

How does this square with the self confessed
metropolitan liberals of today? Imagine the smooth young advertising executive,
hosting a dinner party in Greenwich village or Notting Hill, suddenly
announcing to his Armani-clad coterie of media and public relations friends
that, whilst holding himself up as a liberal, he disapproved of mass
immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the
European Union, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism.

Sunday, 24 July 2016

Rape, murder, machetes and guns. Angela Merkel has blood on
her hands. If you invite barbarians into your liberal democracy you can only
expect them to behave like barbarians. If you invite enough of them in, then
your liberal democracy will be harmed in the short term and destroyed in the long
term.

The numbers involved are huge. One million mainly young
Muslim males last year, most of whom will bring at least five family members
which could well include four wives if they so choose. If the four wives go on
to have four children each – as is the average today for Muslims in the West - Germany’s
next generation will be Muslim majority.

The
left-leaning mainstream media seems extraordinarily determined to link the Munich
killer Ali David Sonboly with right-wing political thought, despite there being
zero evidence of such a link. In
contrast though, when Muslims commit murder in the name of Islam, the same
left-leaning MSM go to equally extraordinary lengths to deny the Islamic link.
Which is why the MSM is deemed a member of the traitor class which must one day
be held accountable.